Is there a need for a single household computer to use a router? If so, what is it useful for? I was told I needed a router for my computr by 1 person and another told me I really don't need it unless I had 2 or more computers I wanted to get on the internet or to network them together. I only have the 1 computer. I don't need to know that is would be nice to have one but only if it is really necessary.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Is a router necessary for a single personal Computer? 1
- Thread starter malibu65k
- Start date
A firewall is a program that blocks/allows/routes traffic over specific networking ports. It is designed specifically for this purpose.
NAT, while it does provide some security, is not enough alone. NAT allows you to transition local (internal) IP addresses to your global (external) IP address. It does provide a layer of security because every packet is then handled by the router for an "authentication" process (and any packets that come back and cannot be authenticated are dropped). However, this doesn't stop a piece of malware from coming down with another install, it doesn't block access to a specific port used on your system, it leaves open several large gaps in security.
Used in conjunction with a true firewall, NATing is extremely effective in making your network harder to access and discover.
Here's an article that explains a bit of NATing and firewalls.
NAT, while it does provide some security, is not enough alone. NAT allows you to transition local (internal) IP addresses to your global (external) IP address. It does provide a layer of security because every packet is then handled by the router for an "authentication" process (and any packets that come back and cannot be authenticated are dropped). However, this doesn't stop a piece of malware from coming down with another install, it doesn't block access to a specific port used on your system, it leaves open several large gaps in security.
Used in conjunction with a true firewall, NATing is extremely effective in making your network harder to access and discover.
Here's an article that explains a bit of NATing and firewalls.
Dohp
The above is the firewall link here is the NAT link
The above is the firewall link here is the NAT link
OK, let me jump back in...
First of all, I said that NAT is [blue]commonly known[/blue] as a "hardware firewall". That's just the association many people make. Aquias is technically correct in saying that the true sense of a firewall is one that monitors traffic. NAT doesn't do that alone.
However, talking about protection is a two-fold discussion. When referring to protection from the outside, NAT with SPI (Stateful Packet Inspection) is sufficient for home use (inbound protection). As I mentioned in my first post, it is a good idea to also have a software firewall as well for reasons aquias reiterated (outbound protection).
That link I posted way at the top also talks about this...
~cdogg
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
First of all, I said that NAT is [blue]commonly known[/blue] as a "hardware firewall". That's just the association many people make. Aquias is technically correct in saying that the true sense of a firewall is one that monitors traffic. NAT doesn't do that alone.
However, talking about protection is a two-fold discussion. When referring to protection from the outside, NAT with SPI (Stateful Packet Inspection) is sufficient for home use (inbound protection). As I mentioned in my first post, it is a good idea to also have a software firewall as well for reasons aquias reiterated (outbound protection).
That link I posted way at the top also talks about this...
~cdogg
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Wasn't attacking you cdogg, but a firewall, is a firewall, is a firewall.
Yes, NAT and SPI are more secure than NAT alone. A direct attack against NAT enabled SPI, most times, will fail. Unless the hacker/program assault is intelligent and persistent.
However, if someone (which happens often) downloads and installs a service with a hidden program to it, that program is coming from an internal address. As such it has the right to open a port via SPI and begin allowing inbound traffic. Now, depending on the sophistication and exact configuration of the router, you may very well have a big issue here.
A firewall doesn't have that "user" vulnerability. It blocks everything you tell it, regardless of its origination.
This is just one instance of how SPI can be circumvented (yes, very basic but, meh)
Yes, NAT and SPI are more secure than NAT alone. A direct attack against NAT enabled SPI, most times, will fail. Unless the hacker/program assault is intelligent and persistent.
However, if someone (which happens often) downloads and installs a service with a hidden program to it, that program is coming from an internal address. As such it has the right to open a port via SPI and begin allowing inbound traffic. Now, depending on the sophistication and exact configuration of the router, you may very well have a big issue here.
A firewall doesn't have that "user" vulnerability. It blocks everything you tell it, regardless of its origination.
This is just one instance of how SPI can be circumvented (yes, very basic but, meh)
aquias,
Don't worry one bit, no offense taken by any means. I just grow concerned when a thread becomes repetitive, as it seems we're nearing that point again.
I don't think your stance differs from many others that have posted in this thread.
~cdogg
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Don't worry one bit, no offense taken by any means. I just grow concerned when a thread becomes repetitive, as it seems we're nearing that point again.
I don't think your stance differs from many others that have posted in this thread.
~cdogg
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question